Live data from Hacker News

Steam Networks

worksinprogress.co

131–140 of 161 posts

Re: Steam Networks

#131
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reasoning isn't enough on its own, because on the clients' end, electric heat pumps can be more efficient than direct steam heating. Actually their "efficiency" is far above 100%, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance

“Fifth generation” district heating uses heat pumps to extract heat from a network of lukewarm water.

Yep and IIRC you can even dump waste heat back to the loop at what would normally be just consumers - eq. to cool a hockey stadium or for a big building AC system.

Re: Steam Networks

#132
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most electricity is generated by using steam to turn turbines, right? So it definitely seems more efficient to just use the steam directly, instead of converting it to electrical energy and then converting it back to heat.

There's no single efficienty number for "steam". Steam turbines in large power plants for example are >90% efficient when considering just the thermodynamics. There are a hundred other variables involved.

I'll note that powerplant steam turbines are often pretty cutting edge & supported by essentially a special plant to achieve this levels of efficiency and reliability. Stuff like hydrogen cooling the generator bit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-cooled_turbo_generato...

Re: Steam Networks

#133

Even Seattle has one of these! And the University of Washington as well. It’s amazing that the economics holds up even today. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Steam_Company

A LOT of universities have a central heat plant that pumps hot water to all the other buildings. I think steam has been phases out because it is so much more dangerous and electric pumps make it unnecessary.

Yeah, a lot of institutions are removing steam for heating and replacing it with glycol loops.

Re: Steam Networks

#134
post #9

Even Seattle has one of these! And the University of Washington as well. It’s amazing that the economics holds up even today. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Steam_Company

Vancouver as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Energy

And UBC

Re: Steam Networks

#135
post #78

How common are district heating systems? Montpelier in Vermont uses wood stoves to deliver steam to a large part of their small downtown: https://www.montpelier-vt.org/427/Project-Background

Incredibly common in continental Europe. Wikipedia has an overview: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating

Yep, we have a big distric heating system here in Brno, Czech Republic - in operation since 1930, with 110 000 housholds & most big public and commercial buildings connected. It started as coal fired, but the modern system combines natural gas cogeneration (gas turbine -> steam turbine -> district heat) and waste incineration (that also includes a steam turbine to make some electricity). In the summer the waste incinerator provides all the necessary heat for the system alone. :)

Eventually the city would like to make the system stop using natural gas, so there is a wood waste burning plant comming online at the end of this year & hot water pipeline is being built from the nearby Dukovany power plant. This two together should make the system natural gas indepedent in the future. :)

While it started as steam based system & powered most of then very important textile industry, steam also has issues. Old pipes loose quite a bit of heat on the way (there used to be evergreen meadows even in winter in places above the old steam pipes), the pipes flex quite a bit when heating up/cooling, so they need to be placed on rollers in underground channels with U shaped sections to account for the pipe stretching/contracting. The steam also condenses & you need to get rid of that condensate on the way. And while unlikely, it is possible for a steam pipe to burst/explode, which is very dangerous for any bystanders.

For these reasons & because the textile industry being much less important, the Brno district heating system is being converted to hot water distribution, which is quite a bit more effcient apparently. Reportedly, with modern insulated pipes, the heat loss on the way is negligeable, the pipes can be placed directly in the ground & they form a closed loop - no more mucking with rollers, condensante or explosions.

So in a few years, the often seen steam ventilation pipes (from the various steam related texhnical spaces) around the city will be a thing of the past. :)

Re: Steam Networks

#136
post #101
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Random thought: could you insulate high voltage wires in pipes and blow cold air through those? Any loss would become “free” heating for homes nearby.

I feel like this could be a nice high school physics test question. Realistically, I don't think HV lines have much energy loss, owing to the use of high voltage in the first place as a means of minimizing loss. Then there are considerations for air resistance in the tubes, an almost 100% effective insulator, and all those real world issues of gnarly general maintenance. Almost all electricity run through computers a…

Could not find the answer, kept getting general pages about how much current a wire can pass (without the result even containing the keyword I looked for, like temperature or heat or warm). To still have some indication of whether this is an interesting thing to keep looking into, ChatGPT says:

> Typically, high-voltage transmission lines are designed to operate at temperatures of around 75 to 100°C (167 to 212°F). However, under heavy loads, they can sometimes reach up to 150°C (302°F), but this is usually the upper limit for safe operation.

If that's a core temperature then the insulation might not make it significant, but if the outside leaks this much... I might not mind paying myself for a plastic tube and a fan to use around the line if I lived near one. Okay okay, it'll be more complicated than that, but still: free energy? And you're doing the power company a favor by decreasing the resistance in the case of most metals (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/resistivity-conductivity-...) including copper which https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_cable says they're made of

Re: Steam Networks

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a great Technology Connections video which lays out why the sizing issue might not be as bad as you're thinking. The gist is that many people are steered away from heat pumps (or sold very expensive oversized units) by outdated industry thinking which vastly overestimates load calculations. I won't try to make his case here, but he is pretty convincing that a reasonably sized heat pump system can be sufficien…

It's all theoretical. In real life, retrofitting heat pumps into exisinting homes is a bit different, as those homes are neither made for air heat sources (at least in my region), nor they are insullated well. You might say, dough, insulate it, but it is easier said than done, as a lot of those old homes relied on their leakage for ventilation, not to mention that is very expensive investment (much more expensive tha…

This is not theoretical: my heat pump purchased in 2021 worked well for four straight days of below 0F. Kept our temp at 68 inside. We live in an old home from 1917 with poor insulation between the brick exterior walls and drywall.

Re: Steam Networks

#138

"A recent study found that a fireplace pumps out 58 milligrams of particles under 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5s) per kilogram of firewood burnt. This means that every hour you spend in a room with a fireplace burning wood reduces your lifespan by about 18 minutes, equivalent to smoking 1.5 cigarettes" These kinds of stats really irritate me. Sure, smoking isn't great. Breathing in small particulates also isn't grea…

That's why they don't look at 1 person but at aggregates. If the world was made of twins and triplets and they lived identical lives (nutrition, stress levels, air quality, ...) besides the 1 factor you're interested in (fireplace yes/no), that would be great for learning from, but of course that's not the case, not even for that astronaut

I'd encourage you to open up one of these studies. The language in scientific papers is made to sound smart but it's still English (most of the time) and you'll see these sorts of things are established by looking at many people in many situations and then use maths to tease out how much each of the factors (living near a major road, for instance) contributes to the thing being investigated (such as longevity). Many of the factors, also depending on the number of people involved, will not turn out to be statistically significant, meaning that the error margins are too large to be sure. For smoking and woodfire particulates though, we're certain that it's unhealthy to within extremely low error margins. Whether that's precisely 18 minutes: probably not, but presumably that's our best guess, even if it has uncertainty associated with it. The paper is linked literally within the quote you gave, if you want to check how uncertain the value is: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235271022...

Skimming this one, they didn't establish the relation between particulate matter and lifespan themselves but they cite other studies that did this:

> correlating average PM2.5 levels during a shorter time interval and the average life expectancy during that same time period. In Taiwan, this method used data from 17 counties for the 2010 to 2017 period and resulted in a DLE factor of 0.798 years per 10 μg/m3-increase in exposure to PM2.5 [50]. Using data from 545 counties in the United States for between 2000 and 2007 [51] and data from 214 cities in China for between 2013 and 2017 [52], resulted in lower DLE factors: 0.14 and 0.18 years, respectively, per additional 10 μg/m3 of exposure to PM2.5.

If you doubt those methods, you should click through to sources 50, 51, and 52. This study just measured the amount of PM2.5 in three situations and then multiplied it with that value from the other studies (I didn't read far enough to see which one they ended up picking, that should be mentioned somewhere if you want to know/check it precisely), and that's how they get to this value

> There's just no real evidence this stat is true.

They don't just pull stats from thin air. If you think they made a mistake somewhere and arrived at the wrong number, I'm curious to hear where they went wrong, and the authors would probably be happy to be get an even better stat as well

Re: Steam Networks

#140
post #30

The article cites end-to-end efficiency as 60%. Plus the costs of maintaining steam generators and the pipe network. Electrical transmission systems are roughly 85% efficient to the consumer; together with boring old resistive electric radiators which are 100% efficient. So is there any reason to subscribe to the steam system for new construction?

Most electricity is generated by using steam to turn turbines, right? So it definitely seems more efficient to just use the steam directly, instead of converting it to electrical energy and then converting it back to heat.

The inefficiencies come from infrastructure. Transferring electricity is so goddamn cheap, that city planners and developers hardly consider it a footnote. Water, sewage and drainage on the other hand are much, much more expensive. They require much more space, and oft times need to be pressurized. Imagine that with steam pipes where the steam on top of all that, needs to be heated too. Sure, hooking up to an existing steam main probably doesn't cost too much, but building new mains can't be worth it, even in the long run, as infrastructure constantly needs to be upgraded.
Post reply on HN